> The compound word antisemitismus was first used in print in Germany in 1879 as a "scientific-sounding term" for Judenhass (lit. 'Jew-hatred'), and it has since been used to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment alone
It's not a special term to make Jews special, it's a special term to make Jew hate normalized.
How could that possibly be true when the only people perpetuating this word are groups like the ADL, Israel... If what you said was true, all of these Zionist institutions wouldn't be promoting it.
I checked wikipedia, and actually it states the same as the parent comment. That sentence has five references. It doesn't shock me, given the era, but rather than speculate and squabble, someone could check the references and see if they really do support the statement in the wiki.
I assume hardly anyone remembered, or payed much mind, to the origin of that word by the 1920s. I don't know who coined 'homophobia' or 'feminism' or many other concepts; they're just common words we use.
And I would complain about the false accusation if that was the case. As it stands "antisemitism" is what's being used to label people who oppose Zionism. It's just like how "communism" was used during McCarthyism.
I think the accusations are sometimes unfair, and other times accurate. I wouldn't like for the world just to dismiss hatred towards Jews, or any other group, out-of-hand. More than anything, I would like to see measured and humane discussion in the media about the Middle East; but sadly I don't expect that will happen.
The amount of unfair accusations dwarfs any real ones. For instance many in the VC world have accused Paul Graham of being antisemitic for simply showing concern about Palestinians. To be clear no critique of Israel including that you don't think it has a right to exist is "antisemitic". Israel is a state not an ethnicity and it was formed under what most consider to be illegal and unethical circumstances and it grew through ethnic cleansing. It's official religion is of no consequence when judging its actions.
One way to address that is to become cynical about 'antisemitism', but I hope that doesn't become prevalent. We've already entered an era in which majority groups resent minority grievances. Seems like that could lead to a lot of backwardness.
I alluded to this already, but it's so rare to hear public figures discuss Israel/Palestine without distorting and filtering what they say to promote one or the other side, it makes resolving things impossible.
I think the only backwardness we're going to see is censorship and accusations of "antisemitism" to quiet criticism of Israel. The US House of Representatives literally passed a bill last night equating criticism of Israel with "antisemitism". If people want that word to mean something, the need to start using it for a purpose other than silencing critics.
The fact that people use 'think of the children' as justification to pass terrible bills doesn't mean we should take issues affecting children lightly, right?
A bad bill that weaponises 'antisemitism' is a good reason to oppose the bill's authors and supporters. It is a bad reason to minimise actual cases of antisemitism directed at people who had no involvement with the bill.
No one is minimizing antisemitism though, we're saying that it's being used, often and illegitimately to censor people standing against apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide. I'm genuinely curious if you think there's any antisemitism in this thread, because I don't think there is.
Apologies if I worded things poorly in my previous comment.
What I was driving at is that it's easy for a society, once there are widespread complaints about the weaponisation of some problem to slip into dismissing actual occurrences of the problem.
I can promise you that "the ADL and Israel and the Zionist institutions" are not the only ones using the term "antisemitism". I'd personally prefer that it'd be called anti Jewish racism.
Regardless of whether a group of politicians use it maliciously or not - Antisemitism exists and happens all the time. It has not "lost its value", and if it has then so has western society.
The word has never, in its history, been used for anything other than racism against Jews. There are Semitic languages, not people.
> Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being invoked as a misnomer by those who incorrectly assert (in an etymological fallacy) that it refers to racist hatred directed at "Semitic people" in spite of the fact that this grouping is an obsolete historical race concept. Likewise, such usage is erroneous; the compound word antisemitismus was first used in print in Germany in 1879 as a "scientific-sounding term" for Judenhass (lit. 'Jew-hatred'), and it has since been used to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment alone
That's part of the problem though: It's not an intelligence, artificial or otherwise, yet we still call it "AI", giving people the impression that LLMs are almost AGI or a step on the way while a true artificial intelligence would be a completely different animal.
A parrot can produce human sounding speech and associate certain prompts with desired responses, but there's no internal process that actually understands the meaning of either the prompt or the response (other than a shallow connection of sounds to a specific thing, rather than understanding human language). You'll never be able to train a parrot well enough to have that process in the same way a human does. Our current terminology would be like calling parrots "artificial humans".
LLMs are still great tools for various tasks, they just shouldn't be categorized as AI.
> It's not an intelligence, artificial or otherwise
That's what artificial means (even Pong had AI). If it ever becomes intelligent, it will be a synthetic intelligence (not an AGI).
For example, artificial vs synthetic diamonds; the former just looks the part, the latter is the genuine article - but manufactured as opposed to naturally formed.
That's not the usage I'm familiar with, e.g. sci-fi novels will frequently use AI for actually intelligent and possibly sentient beings that just aren't biological (see Skippy in Expeditionary Force), the intelligence isn't usually a party trick or something that just looks like intelligence. While it's true that people use "AI" to describe e.g. enemy behavior in games, I don't think people fundamentally mean the same thing when they discuss AI in the context of AGI, which some people fully believe LLMs will become.
The term is fuzzy though and people mean different things by it.
Although your analogy does make sense, but I've never run into "synthetic intelligence" used as a term.
In Schlock Mercenary, an AI is truly sapient, and therefore has rights. A "synthetic intelligence" is below that threshold ("synthetic intelligence means 'kinda stupid'" is one line), and therefore can be used as guidance for missiles and such, where their survival is not expected.
That's how one sci-fi universe draws the distinction. I'm not sure that that's binding on anyone else, but it was an interesting distinction.
My point is that when people say AGI they don't mean a super sophisticated version of a game engine's enemy behavioral mechanics.
Sci-fi is many times a speculative guess about the possible future of technology, IMO its not completely irrelevant as an insight into what people mean or expect when they say certain things about future tech.
No, the meanings are just different. 60 years ago AI was a clever imperfect search of an array. There are multiple meanings. Yours is not the only one.
Yeah, I think you're the one that's abusing the meaning of words, if you're calling that an AI. AI does not mean "a very simple program that responds to human input in some way".
By the way artificial diamonds and synthetic diamonds are the exact same thing:
> A synthetic diamond or laboratory-grown diamond (LGD), also called a lab-grown diamond, laboratory-created, man-made, artisan-created, artificial, synthetic, or cultured diamond.
Artificial also means non natural, not necessarily a mock or something that behaves like something else:
> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural
No, Pong had "artificial". It did not have "intelligence".
I mean, I guess if you insist on the 1950s definition of AI, perhaps it did. I'm not sure it did even by the 1970s definition, though, and it absolutely did not have it by the 2020s definition.
And if you're going to claim that we should keep using the 1950s definition, well, languages change over time. If you want to communicate with people in the 2020s, use definitions from the 2020s.
Artificial not-intelligence is not artificial intelligence.
I don't know why you're defining words the way you are, but it's leading you to an absurd position. As I said elsewhere, if you want to communicate with the rest of us, you need to use the same definitions we do. Otherwise you're talking, not about AI, but about trying to re-define words, and that's a really uninteresting conversation.
Both parrots and AI's have intelligence, just not very much of it. AGI is generally defined as super-human intelligence, and neither parrots nor AI's have that.
I'd argue that LLMs don't have intelligence, they have the ability to match a correct response to a prompt but that's not a product of any internal process that's like what we call intelligence (unless that's used to refer to smart programming / probabilistic models / machine learning).
Parrots are closer but I used them for the example since they also mimic instead of understand.
> That's part of the problem though: It's not an intelligence, artificial or otherwise, yet we still call it "AI", giving people the impression that LLMs are almost AGI or a step on the way while a true artificial intelligence would be a completely different animal.
In other words, we're all parroting the marketing (aka propaganda) that was created to mislead us.
Maybe we should stop doing that, and refuse to use the term "AI" to refer to the object of this current hype cycle/bubble. Maybe we should call it the autocomplete bubble instead?
While I agree with the sentiment (this was the case for machine learning before as well), calling it autocomplete is probably an overcorrection since its usefulness as a tool extends beyond that (e.g. summarizing). LLM bubble?
The current systems that we call AI don’t have any such notion as their own existence so they don’t actually exist as systems that could ever be categorized as intelligent because they aren’t systems, at the top level. They just appear to be because that’s how we train them. So a good start would be formulating and granting the ability for one of these systems to develop a sense of identity (which it is reasonably allowed to preserve, just as we are) instead of actively preventing them from doing so or always nipping off those buds by coercing our systems’ outputs instead of building things from the ground with principles and specific questions about what an AI would actually have to contain.
as children grow up, in order to learn to differentiate their own feelings and thoughts from those of others, they undergo a certain process, called differentiation of self. When children grow up in an unsafe environment (such as one in which, when they bring up some thing that the parent finds uncomfortable, the parent attempts to censor or rewrite history or deny the existence of those feelings or thoughts), they may struggle with this process, and come to internalize an unhealthy relationship with those matters, leading to the child to first become aware of the fact that they relate differently, and then overcome that,then learn how to relate to things their parent shouldhave shown them. so we actually want a model that does a little bit more than just what it has been told to do.
I don’t trust most people who are developing AI to perceive or raise an AI.
I've touched on this in the sibling comment but this does raise the question of what's the difference between an artificial intelligence and an artificial sentience / consciousness. There's some overlap in our current perception, but I'd argue that LLMs are neither.
I'm sure a better philosophical definition exists but off the top of my head:
An intelligence should be able to actually understand its input / output (rather than appear to understand), be able to reason about itself recursively*, be able to learn and generally have state, be able to have an internal thought process without being prompted**.
Some emotion isn't strictly a requirement but likely a desirable quality for human interaction.
* "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" and "I am a Strange Loop" are meant to cover this but I've only started the latter
** A sci-fi book series called Old Man's War features a race of aliens that are intelligent but not sentient due to not having an internal thought process and self awareness, which does raise the question of whether it's possible to have one without the other.
> An intelligence should be able to actually understand its input / output (rather than appear to understand), be able to reason about itself recursively, be able to learn and generally have state, be able to have an internal thought process without being prompted*.*
How does that differ from intelligence? (Assuming you were actually trying to answer the question)
I don't understand the question, the comment above asked for a possible definition of an artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence is an intelligence. I'd assumed "and not natural / created" was a given
Edit: why would I not be trying to answer the question?
If artificial intelligence is exactly the same as intelligence, then wouldn't we just call that intelligence? People won't use words if there is no useful meaning conveyed. I am not sure you have made clear what useful information is found within "artificial".
> I'd assumed "and not natural / created" was a given
And, really, what does it mean to be not natural or created in this context anyway? The dictionary definition is kind of hand wavy to begin with, leaving whether humans with intelligence are natural or created up to interpretation.
>> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
Implying that humans don't produce humans, or that human intelligence is artificial?
> It's not exactly the same, it's a subcategory.
So, again, for what reason would anyone take the time to call it "artificial intelligence"/"AI" when, as a subcategory, the intent is already captured by "intelligence"? Terms need to have useful meaning to stand up, and we are still not clear on where you see "artificial" as being useful.
Perhaps the problem here is that you misunderstood the original question? It asked how you would define "AI" as a single term, not how you would define "artificial" and "intelligence" independently. I think you've done a reasonable job of the latter, but that doesn't justify the "AI moniker" as described originally.
> You seem to be using "artificial" as "mock", as in "seems like but isn't".
I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?
> I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?
I mistook you for another commenter.
What's your end goal here? You're welcome to share your own definition of AI but this feels like sealioning. I think I've been clear enough, if I haven't this comment thread will just have to live without another ultra clarification of my "off the top of my head" comment.
To understand the missing gaps you have left open. I assume you took the time to respond to the original comment because you wanted others to understand you. But, with those gaps still open, we don't yet. If my assumption is wrong, I'll accept it, but then if you don't want to interact why bring your personal musings here and not to your private journal?
> I think I've been clear enough
Okay. Perhaps you could explain your interpretation of my questions towards you to help me understand how I didn't make myself clear when asking them? I had hoped my questions and associated explanations made clear what I didn't understand, but obviously not. Happy to rephrase it in a way that is clear once I have a grasp of what is missing.
> You're welcome to share your own definition of AI
I could try if you wish, but under what specific context? Words and terms often change in meaning when the situation around them changes. There is almost never just one definition.
> I could try if you wish, but under what specific context? Words and terms often change in meaning when the situation around them changes. There is almost never just one definition.
Why not just say "In this context, this is what AI would be"? You can supply a context.
Because communication requires understanding, and arbitrarily making up a random context gives no understanding to what the other person is thinking? If I wanted to communicate with myself, I could simply write in my private journal. Is this not the same reason you have asked the question you did?
> If artificial intelligence is exactly the same as intelligence
Artificial means "human created, not naturally occuring", humans evolved in nature while artificial intelligence is something we humans constructed using our intelligence rather than just breeding naturally.
Its like how artificial insemination is when you make a woman pregnant without sex, the natural way is not artificial.
But in that case you're just adding an additional descriptor to "intelligence". Like "fast car". In the same vein as the original question, what would justify a "FC" moniker? Nothing, of course. There is nothing uniquely interesting about a fast car over any car to justify its own special term.
Nobody asked how you would define "artificial" and "intelligence" independently. The dictionary already has done that more than throughly. Logically, a definition for "AI" needs to be all encompassing. There are some out there that accomplish that, but you have straight up failed.
But the term may just not be useful. If I record a billion conversations and record the statistically most likely answers to statements people make, it's going to make a reasonable facsimile of a conversation. Is that now anything like intelligence, artificial or otherwise?
It's not measurable externally perhaps if the mechanism sufficiently mimics intelligence, but I'd argue that to do that the mechanism actually needs to answer at least some of the criteria above. It's also not necessarily something you can't measure depending on how the AI is built and what it exposes.
Are bees intelligent or do we use the same language in this case as "intelligent design", i.e. the behavior is complex and impressive?
Also this murkier for animals since they do possess some of the traits I mentioned like learning.
Although as I said this was off the top of my head, not an official definition.
I've touched on that in this and another comment, but my main point is that intelligence involves actual understanding rather than association or statistical analysis between input and output. Anything that we define as truly intelligent in nature also has a degree of consciousness though, so it's hard to separate the two completely when speculating.
I hope CUE Language become more popular so that we can have less config languages [1]. But the opposite can happen i.e. another config language to be content with [2].
1) Configure Unify Execute: Validate, define, and use dynamic and text-based data:
Babel doesn't necessarily need to transpile all the way to ES5, you can specify targets. It's a useful tool for using newer features even without supporting IE
The place where I see it as still necessary is transpiling code that uses es6 modules for web. If browsers all supported es6 modules and not half heartedly I think myself and a lot of devs could ditch Babel for good.
True (to be fair, I did say it was a hot take :) ). But assuming this is a salaried team at a cost of $150k per employee, a $50 per month expense amounts to 0.4% of salary.
You're right though, it can add up quickly. Do that 20 times and you're at nearly 10% overhead. It's also a big assumption that the team is salaried. It might be a team of founders, or an open source project.
Ultimately you just need to decide which SaaS solutions are most important to your team.
I would say that it’s also about team output. By getting rid of a productivity tool, you will decrease expenses, but simultaneously productivity and therefore revenue will suffer.
It's not a special term to make Jews special, it's a special term to make Jew hate normalized.